No. Until designers and developers can add new material to thier game without breaking it, let alone make thier base game work, they should refrain from anything but errata.

Quote from: Spinachcat;294597And 12 months after the PHB 4, we get D&D 5th Edition!   The best edition ever! Woot!

Spinachcat,

It's difficult for me to gauge your posts sometimes.  I was being honest in my estimation that there will probably be four Player's Handbooks for 4e D&D.  This estimation was not an indictment on the game itself or its company's practices.  

As far as the year mark before 5e D&D is released, well, nothing much really suprises me anymore.  Also, I don't doubt that there will be a time, sometime down the road, when we will see a new edition of D&D, whether by WotC or another yet undetermined company.

Quote from: jedimastert;294795Also you are using a flawed analogy that I have seen on several RPG forums. Previous editions of D&D are not like software or technology. 4E is not an upgrade over 3.5E (or OD&D, AD&D, 2E, etc.). It is just different. There are people who prefer various editions over others for all kinds of reasons.

Just so it's clear, I do not think that games are like software, or that each successive game is an "upgrade" of the last version.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;294585Okay, that's a wholly different thing, then. Not fitting in with the game as run is different than contributing to mechanical powercreep issues.

You can always try reskinning stuff. For example, if you don't like psionicists call them "enchanters" and let their powers be subject to the usual magic stuff. Or just say "It doesn't fit with this game guys. Sorry, maybe next time." Problem solved.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;294820Just so it's clear, I do not think that games are like software, or that each successive game is an "upgrade" of the last version.

Ok, fair enough. It was looking like that with your examples (e.g. Commodore 64). I have seen the upgrade notion at several other places.

Quote from: jeff37923;294440So what you have described sounds like an internet based, online version of the supplement mill. The only thing that has changed is the medium of presentation.

There are similarities but the difference is that the computer presentation can have a better index and cross-references not just little better but several orders of magnitude better. Compare using the Online version of Britannia vs the off-line version.

But there is a point where even those capabilities will break down. Where there is just too much and people will begin to drop out of the game.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;294442I like your Magic: The Gathering analogy and I think it is about as close as it gets: PHB2 is simply an extra set of cards. And obviously you do not need a copy of every single card in order to play.

Yes, but lest you forget there many informal groups that have their own ban list outside of the official list. This because people want to play the game with skill not have the winner go to somebody who happens to have the latest cards knowing the latest tricks.

This is the downside of the exception based design of WoTC. That while the game is simple to learn in practical terms there is too much depth for the average player or GM to keep up with.

Now I don't think 4e has hit this yet. Personally if it was me. I would go up to a PHB 3 and then switch to a more focused theme for the yearly releases. Use the 4e design to offer self-contained mileaus. I realize that they are doing some of this will the setting releases but they carry the baggage of being general purpose D&D settings. I am talking something more focused.  Like 2012 can be the Sword & Sorcery year. 2013 the High Magic year and so on.

Quote from: estar;294898Yes, but lest you forget there many informal groups that have their own ban list outside of the official list. This because people want to play the game with skill not have the winner go to somebody who happens to have the latest cards knowing the latest tricks.

This is the downside of the exception based design of WoTC. That while the game is simple to learn in practical terms there is too much depth for the average player or GM to keep up with.

Now I don't think 4e has hit this yet. Personally if it was me. I would go up to a PHB 3 and then switch to a more focused theme for the yearly releases. Use the 4e design to offer self-contained mileaus. I realize that they are doing some of this will the setting releases but they carry the baggage of being general purpose D&D settings. I am talking something more focused.  Like 2012 can be the Sword & Sorcery year. 2013 the High Magic year and so on.

You aren't wrong. Enworld, for example, has their own "living campaign" and they ban everything but the PHB by default, with a "6 month waiting period" for everything else.

Personally I think D&D should be fearless. Let em have it, I sez. The wyvern in the final encounter is a doozy.

Ok, so here's my position on this. I think the supplement mill is something that was quite a profitable idea for certain companies, but almost from day one it was something toxic to the hobby as a whole. It was what changed our hobby from a mainstream games phenomenon into a "hobby for fanatics".  This isn't a problem from the last few years, or the 90s, or even the late 80s. It started as early as the various AD&D 1e sourcebooks.  And ultimately, it may be what kills us.

The real question is: what is the alternative?

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;295222The real question is: what is the alternative?

RPGPundit

This is the question. Without the treadmill, would there even be an industry worth the name?

More distinct new games means a potentially larger split in revenue between your own lines and between competing companies' lines. With the supplemental model, you can at least try to lock your customers into your game lines.

Quote from: RPGPundit;295222Ok, so here's my position on this. I think the supplement mill is something that was quite a profitable idea for certain companies, but almost from day one it was something toxic to the hobby as a whole. It was what changed our hobby from a mainstream games phenomenon into a "hobby for fanatics".  This isn't a problem from the last few years, or the 90s, or even the late 80s. It started as early as the various AD&D 1e sourcebooks.  And ultimately, it may be what kills us.

The real question is: what is the alternative?

RPGPundit

Community generated content, ala Sporepedia.

Comprehensive Core Books with online community support and quarterly periodicals with adventures.

Quote from: Nihilistic Mind;295232Comprehensive Core Books with online community support and quarterly periodicals with adventures.

Sounds like win to me.

The other of course is if the "industry" is worth saving. My concerns are for the hobby not the companies making money off it.

From what I have seen so far I think we would all keep gaming and creating stuff even if woke up tomorrow to find Wizards, GW and WW had been nuked off the face of the earth.

Actualy, let me rephrase that... "Saving" the industry my hairy arse, it either has 2 solid legs to stand on or it doesn't and it will eventualy wobble and fall.

Quote from: RPGPundit;295222The real question is: what is the alternative?

RPGPundit

Moderation in all things.

Use the supplement mill to expand on the Core Rules, but do not allow that to be the only product line. Include magazines, deadtree and/or online. Include adventures, also either deadtree and/or online. After a short run of the supplement mill, stop it to allow consumers to catch up - use that time to create and publish a version of your Core Rules that will be attractive to people who do not play the game so that you can increase your customer base for the Core Rules (both a Basic version of the game and a Moderate version of the game to catch the interest of all those casual gamers out there).

Be aware of consumer opinion and treat your consumers with respect.